Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Diabetes Discussions' started by Oldvatr, Mar 20, 2016.
I raise this question here since it apparently has nothing to do with the sugar tax.
I think this is a difficult one because different people use different hypo 'cures'.
In my opinion, no it shouldn't be exempt. Like a lot of fizzy drinks it contains sodium benzoate which can bring on asthma attacks and a whole list of other medical problems. Since it is no healthier than other sugary drinks it should be taxed like the rest of them.
After reading the "other thread"? Band it like a "class A drug."
I think the simple answer is no, as those turning away from other sugary pop drinks will just start drinking more Lucozade if it is exempted.
Yep put like that then no exemption. I don't see why I should pay less for lucozade than a non d.
no way should it be exempt
@lovinglife I like your style .
Lucozade has saved my life so yes it should be exempt. It acts quickly
Hi @traceylill1 Welcome to the forum I would just like to say Lucozade has also endangered my son's life (aged 3) by making an asthma attack worse so that he needed a nebuliser at the surgery. Up until then I hadn't realised just how unhealthy Lucozade was.
I suppose what is good for some is bad for others.
Edit: PS I'm glad it saved your life.
I don't think lucozade or glucojuice (or other hypo treatments) should be generally exempt because there would be a risk of abuse. Although I can't really see the cool kids deciding to save 8p and swigging on lucozade instead of Coke!
Ideally, I would like to see an exemption or rebate scheme for insulin dependant diabetics buying hypo treatments that are caught by he sugar tax. But I absolutely appreciate that the costs of such a scheme would probably make it counter productive.
I understand that funds raised from the sugar tax will go to funding healthy lifestyle education in schools. So what I would like to see is the money (or a percentage of the money) raised to the sugar tax from products widely & traditionally used as hypo treatments going to fund education for insulin dependent children on how to manage diabetes and exercise. I think that would be a nice compromise position that wouldn't undermine the public health aims of the tax, would hopefully not be costly to administer and would mean that I wouldn't feel like I was being unfairly penalised for having to purchase hypo treatments.
Just an idea
I was advised to drink a bottle a day during chemo treatment to help with the fatigue side effect. I did this. I have no idea if it helped with the fatigue, but it sure helped to give me T2 diabetes. The sugar tax is intended to help reduce the possibility of T2, so definitely it should not be exempt.
As has been said time and time again Lucozade is not the only remedy for a hypo my brother in law carries a Mars bar with him at all times as that is his choice of preference one of the wife's cousins carries sugar cubes and another carries a small bottle of Lucozade as their choices of preference so why should Lucozade be given preferential treatment over other products which also could be used to treat hypoglycaemia..
I am so sorry for your son and I hope he stays healthy away from Lucozade but it will always be my lifesaver.
No of course not, it's no healthier than any other fizzy drink.
Because, at the moment, sugar tax will only apply to liquids. So there will be absolutely no impact on solid hypo treatments. So I don't think an exemption would result in preferential treatment over other hypo treatments: the sugar tax will not hit on Mars bars or, weirdly, sugar!
As an aside, while I would support anyone in using the hypo treatment that works for them (or whatever happens to be handy at the key moment), my DSN told me off for using "raw" sugar (I just mean sugar cubes) because apparently they are lower GI than lucozade/glucojuice/dextrose tablets, so won't work as quickly. A mars bar is 17% fat and 60% sugar, that fat will slow down the impact of the sugar on treating the hypo. I can see why it is preferred for carrying round with you, cos it's portable and nice and perfectly fine to treat a not too low low when you are up and about and you notice it and treat it straight away, not so good for the middle of the night waking up shaking you have to get up at 6am and you want to go back to sleep type low.
Definitely should not be exempt.
There are other options to treat hypos.
I use Glucotabs to treat my hypos. I could not imagine the hassle of carrying around a liquid which, knowing me, I would spill at some point.
But if you want to to use sugary drinks to treat hypos, I think we should accept the tax. As someone with Type 1 Diabetes, I feel I am amazingly lucky to live in a country that provides me with insulin, test strips, meter, etc. The small cost of hypo treatment is nothing compared to the fear that my insurance company would force me to change my treatment just because it is cheaper for them.
" A mars bar is 17% fat and 60% sugar, that fat will slow down the impact of the sugar on treating the hypo. I can see why it is preferred for carrying round with you, cos it's portable and nice and perfectly fine to treat a not too low low when you are up and about and you notice it and treat it straight away, not so good for the middle of the night waking up shaking you have to get up at 6am and you want to go back to sleep type low."
And it works for him some times he will carry jelly babies or even a flake bar depends on how he feels he has had to use them several times as he does get frequent hypos the alternatives to Lucozade are not all solid sugars so do we want an exemption for all sugary pop drinks or just the ones that are or have been marketed as some sort of health drink.